!agree

Gee, if only there was some other way for Trump to have obtained the funds necessary to build the wall.

!levels

I like how they call it "absolute control over women's movements." So my schizo neighbour is right. I actually am controlling his mind when I look at him.

You can kinda spam, but you only get XP once a minute per post.

Not the citizens, obviously. We don't kick people out of the country simply for disagreeing with a political action.

Because Communism is a basically a religion, and they want that to be the primary ideology

I em athesit, and that entails nothing else about my beliefs

It's short for Sinclair

You're thinking of Skepticism

Atheism is a position on the existence of deities. Skepticism is a belief in questioning knowledge.

it can be

I think dogmatism is really the parasite more than religion itself. People can create religious meaning without dogmatically sticking to the irrational principles.

Yeah. Dogmatism is saying "I'm going to believe this, even if all the evidence around me suggests otherwise."

@BEE I expected it. I'm okay with a wall being built, and Dems weren't letting Trump get the funding fairly, so I'm okay with this potentially overreaching action. It's hardly the most dictatorial move done by a president in recent history.

I don't think illegal immigration is that big of a problem, but if we start expanding our welfare state in America it's going to quickly become a bigger problem. People would flock here in droves if we passed something like UBI or free healthcare.

Immigration can be a problem, but it's not inherently bad. It allows smart people to come and support the country they favor. Done poorly, it also allows bad actors the ability to degrade the country.

It would generally be better if, wherever possible, people stayed in their own country and worked to make their country the best it can be.

Fuck that noise. More people = more opportunities to improve the world

How on Earth are they all going to be dumb?

I don't think that statistic is accurate.

I agree that certain variables can effect IQ in general, but I'm just not convinced that this prevents those more intelligent from improving the world anyway.

>tried

Galileo's ideas got out anyway, and the world progressed past that point to allow even more free expression of ideas among intelligent people. A powerful force for supressing the intelligent failed. It may very well fail again and again.

Time and time again, people have been supressed, and time and time again they've overcome that suppression. The world benefits when people are more free to spread ideas, and though there may be long periods in which people are controlled, it is ultimately in the best interest of those in power to allow ideas to evolve more naturally.

Islam itself, taken literally, isn't an ideology that's very open to free-thinking. However, I would contend some parts of the religion can still be practiced by free-thinkers, just like most religions can be fleshes out for their more rational elements.

Au**tim**ism

I doubt it. Too many variables in identity. The systems that tend to succeed are simple and based more in objective reality.

Oh, possibly then, for awhile anyway. Tribalism is deeply rooted in human behaviour.

6 months - 2 years, if it's not a thing already.

More accurately, they're trying to stir up interesting sensational stories. Racial tension stories generate lots of money.

It might stabilize though. Hell, I'd say it's currently pretty stable. The violence is minimal and isolated.

These incidents may be violent, but the system is still stable. People are going to work and school still. No mass civil unrest, just Antifa merely trying to go hot. I'll wait and see how it progresses, but it's not destabilizing anything besides local mood.

It should. It's weird. It's a detachment from part of what makes us human. It's a side effect of our technology though. We're overexposed to information and desensitized, but it might not can be helped without bringing in other dystopian elements such as censorship or propaganda, which are already being used to combat the apathy.

Everything? Seems a little pessimistic.

So then violence happens. Maybe a few decades or even centuries of chaos. Maybe totalitarian rule steps up to stifle the chaos. Maybe 1984's story becomes strikingly close to reality. Maybe even nuclear war leads to mass death. In the end, whatever will happen, will happen. I prefer to stick to caring about what's in my immediate sphere of influence and control. Worrying about the future outside of me seems like a waste of my emotional energy.

Yeah, the center won't hold forever, as it almost never does, but after the clash between sides things will move on and return to normalcy. Also... this discussion may be getting quite off-topic.

Good stuff though! I love the healthy, rational discussion.

D I A L O G UE

Man, I wish I could accurately assess people's internal degree of comprehension for a topic.

Technically the crime rate of illegal immigrants is 100% because they immigrated illegally, which is a crime.

Right, lol. I really can't say what their crime rates beyond illegal immigration are. Last I heard they commit proportionally fewer crimes, which would make sense because they'd be more likely to be deported if they were arrested for committing further crimes.

brb, illegally immigrating to the moon

Isn't it fun when you can't tell the difference? That's good satire.

!rank

He looks like my uncle without the beanie

dat mag

>tfw people

allah swt

I'm glad you do, mate

Sure. I predict it won't happen.

Yeah, debates are waaay more fun when you don't have the time to think about your response. :v

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous to me how much democrats are pushing back against this wall. A large amount of people want it. Not just Trump. It could be beneficial, and at worst a waste of money, and yet they're not only stifling the project, but taking every measure possible to prevent it from happening. Like, yo, I know they get more voters when immigrants can vote, but they look hyper-partisan when they include all this pork-barrel stuff **and** give a tiny fraction of the amount of funding needed for the wall.

https://youtu.be/jIYBod0ge3Y

Has this been shared here before? I think this is relevant to the ongoing effort to comprehend the truth of modern politics.

Taxation is obviously not slavery, but are you implying it's still bad? And regardless, what makes it more unfair or more evil simply because of this combination of sales and income taxation methods?

It's indirect violence; a form of coercion, since political authority can ultimately be backed up by law enforcement, a.k.a. men with guns. Taxes meets this same criteria, but it's not yet effectively enforced, as there are large numbers of people (44% of Americans) who don't pay taxes.

Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/81-million-americans-wont-pay-any-federal-income-taxes-this-year-heres-why-2018-04-16

They don't all get away with it, but that's a large number of people to have to track down and hold accountable, and the IRS tends to prioritize the people who try to keep more money for themselves, meaning the average person who ignores tax law won't see a gun forcing them to pay anytime soon.

Is it unethical? Yes, but the American constitution lists "promote the general welfare" as one of its purposes, and a welfare state is likely going to be ineffectual if its funding is entirely voluntary. Maybe it would have been better for the government to remain handicapped in its ability to obtain taxation, that way freedom would have been maximized, but I think the choice to make and enforce revenue laws was done more for practical reasons than anything sinister.

Personally, I would rather be taxed under the current rates and have a large military protecting American liberty than avoid taxation and rely on PMCs to protect my "right" to liberty as a citizen.

Screen cap from 0:00 on today's "Jussie Smollet and The Rise of HOAX Hate Crimes" video:

Hm... my impulse is to say yes, but only technically. I see the practicality of exercising political authority, but I think authority is most ethical when it's backed up by reason and not supported by force. I think there are a lot of good reasons for people to do what authority urges them to do, but currently the worldwide standard is to have a gun backing up the governance rather than a sophisticated compendium of good reasons and logical arguments.

I realize it's a bit utopian, which I why I have no problem complying with the current standard, but I would ultimately like to see humanity harness the power of the spoken word to hold people accountable rather than have people be physically arrested and imprisoned.

Make America Gay Anime

Currrently, I would say it is, but only **because** the political authority exercised after the vote is backed up by force, but I have some degree of flexibility and nuance when it comes to these things. Just because I would prefer the political authority to be backed up by reason doesn't mean I prefer a system without any vote at all.

On a small scale, I would prefer me and my friends voting on a place to eat without the threat of violence to enforce the results of the vote to a situation where one of us has a gun and tells all of us "Okay, we decided to eat at KFC, and if anyone tries to do otherwise I'm locking you in the basement." But then I might prefer that absurd scenario to a scenario in which the friend with the gun picks the place and none of us get a say in the matter.

It may be ironic that he's potentially calling himself a devil, but to be fair he didn't answer the question, and it still stands. Who is more to blame? Jussie Smollett, for starting the obvious lie, or the foolish journalists and lefties who believed the lie and helped to spread it? 🤔 #Thoughts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju8Nz2cmCp0

Does it not automatically add previews?!

!rank

Yeah, I was surprised that I had levelled up as much as I did already. Felt like I barely engaged with the chat.

Oh! There goes iDubbbz

No, humans are the minority life form on Earth and as such they must all be eliminated

"nematodes are the most numerically abundant animals on Earth"

It's actually a little disappointing how aggressively he reacted to the beanie being removed, but I can imagine Tim is under a lot of pressure with his job.

It was the guy from the tweet who took it, right? He said Tim wouldn't get it back, but it seems like he stuck around and probably gave it back.

I guess access to clean water isn't established as a "right" per se, but the preamble to the constitution has that whole "promote the general welfare" clause, so at the very least there's a failing of government to fulfill one of its purposes. Not sure where the blame is specifically, but between the state and the fed there should be a relief effort to solve this problem. Very calloused words on the part of the state government if that's really their attitude toward the problem.

Not sure if it's relevant to pin this on AnCaps though, since the government responsible for this position is not Anarchist, nor is there any evidence to suggest that this situation is the result of Capitalism itself.

Woah, careful sharing images of Shaggy. You risk physical damage to viewers who can't handle the power inherent in any visual depiction of him.

Until the courts become biased enough to enforce the sinister intent of the stupid laws rather than the literal interpretation.

Right, I think it's important to note that CPD only suspects he orchestrated his own attack. They haven't come to a definitive conclusion yet, though I personally feel the conclusion with be consistent with their suspicion.

@Stefan Payne Go to Starbucks, read a different CNN article, and ignore the implications of Smollett's hoax.

"alleged" also "FOR DAILYMAIL.COM"

Did you enjoy that sensation? Please consider donating to support The Daily Mail.

Same. He should pay damages to the Trump campaign for helping slander their image.

I dunno about that. Trump's based consist of more than just whites.

I mean, I agree. The public perception is that militant Trump supporters would be racist white folks, but realistically I don't think that can be proven in court and there's no precedent for claiming those kinds of damages.

Whatever happens, the world needs more truth from official sources.

Plot twist, they are actually just Empire fans who were paid by the show's producers to drain the swamp and make the show better.

I was just thinking "what is a good way to throw away all this excess student loan money I borrowed" and here comes the bot answering my question without me having to ask

Le même

The worst part is they didn't sell me any child hearts. I could have used those.

Impossible. Foreplay is precisely when a partner excites another partner, therefore anything prior to foreplay would be a lack of being excited by the partner.

Personally, I prefer foreplay to penetrative intercourse. I resent the notion that my partner is lacking in appearance or demeanor simply because of my preferred method of intimate bonding.

There might be a problem, yeah... but then it might be erectile dysfunction or anxiety rather than necessarily partner appearance or behavior.

If the Colombian cartels gain enough power and influence they can start putting cocaine back in Coca-Cola.

It's a very difficult position to argue against, to be sure

It's because white people are the only race mentally strong enough to handle racism thrown at them.

Frankly the notion that other races can't handle racism is insulting

Careful who you laugh around though. Some folks just want to keep feeling sad and anxious while they sit safely in their apocalypse-approved bubble.

Just further proof that starving yourself doesn't lead to weight loss. The diet industry is crumbling.

(USER HAS BEEN BANNED FOR THIS POST)

I don't like his definitions at all. He mentions nothing about hierachies in his definition of anarchy, which is what the "archy" in anarchy actually is. Anarchy is a lack of hierachy. His definition of power is loaded so as to associate power with a specific application of power, and then his definition of violence is further loaded so that he can imply by the definitions he used that anarchy is resisting violence.

You cannot have praxis without some form of power, even if that power is merely self-determination, but he danced around this so that he could use his loaded definition of power and avoid the notion that anarchists may also be acting to seek power.

I definitely think he's anarcho-communist. He implies that Marxists are among anarchists, but then by his own definitions he should be troubled by that notion considering Marx called for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

If you can have a dictatorship in any form, much less a dictatorship imposed by a class of people, and not use any sort of power or violence to keep that class-based structure in place, I'd be impressed.

The skeleton is the hottest character depicted in this image

I agree. It's my hope, based on trends in human culture, that we're approaching an eventual (way past my lifetime) state of affairs which is not enforced violently, but in the mean time I don't mind violence being a part of reality... at least not too much. Death kinda sucks, but the drama of violence makes the story of reality interesting.

(And I suspect our reality is a form of entertainment for interdimentional beings.)

It's not an entirely inaccurate in definition, it's just selective, and for that reason I don't like it. I'd need to read that whole... what is that? An essay? I'd need to read the whole Stanford entry to be able to criticize it further.